Government's role in the space economy: help it grow

My article on the space economy ended with a comparison to commercial aviation. It noted how modest government investments, such as air mail and an air traffic control system, helped that industry bootstrap itself into the economic powerhouse it is today.

A colleague added:

"The role of government is to provide infrastructure and assume large investments and risks that a fledgling private industry cannot carry. 

"The role of private industry is to use the legal framework, infrastructure and new technologies to enhance economic activity in nimble ways.

"A good analogy is the US Eisenhower Interstate highway system which has been estimated to have an ROI of 6:1 for the public money invested. The trucks that roam the highways are not owned or operated by the government but they do rely on the good roads, law and order, and gas station amenities."

Some US government agencies certainly get this. For example, here's the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." By including efficiency in their mission, the FAA is supporting the profitability of commercial air lines.

Similarly the mission of the Department of Commerce is "a business environment that is productive, innovative, fair and safe." They don't actually use the other P-word, profit, because somehow that's politically tainted, but clearly they want to see American business be successful.

Now, what about NASA? Here's what we learn from their vision statement:

"What Does NASA Do?

03.12.13

 

"NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

"To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?"

Does this vision actually support successful space economic activities? If so, it's implicit, not explicit.

NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are underway. Justifications include wanting a backup ISS access capability, not wanting to rely on Russian rockets, and bringing back experiments. But there's nothing there about wanting to see a robust, diverse, sustainable space economy. Nothing about supporting space tourism, off-Earth mining, or space solar power. There's also nothing there about leveraging commercial launch capabilities to make human space exploration more affordable.

In fact, the present emphasis on development of the Space Launch System is competing with commercial launch providers, denying them a valuable market. To quote from Walker and Miller's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?"

But the launch controversy is only one aspect of the larger issue. NASA is focused on its own heritage and image, not on the huge benefits to humankind to be gained from exploiting off-Earth resources. I wonder if NASA and its political supporters even subconsciously feel as though that would be somehow immoral? Does NASA feel as does this commenter of my article:

"The idea of interplanetary harvesting absolutely astounds and appals me!
"Have we humans not learned anything from the impact of over harvesting of resources on planet earth?
"What in heavens name will the repercussions be if we start messing with resources on other planets??? I for one shudder to think what they might entail."

Hmm. There are 870 million chronically undernourished people in the world.  One quarter of the world's population lacks electricity. Is it important to address these inequities? If so, more resources will be required. Obtaining those resources off-Earth will reduce the scarring of the surface from mining, reduce the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and reduce the production of wastes. Those resources will not be available if they cannot be obtained economically, even profitably.

• Do airline companies make profits? Yes, and low-cost air transportation is available even to those of modest incomes.

• Do pharmaceutical companies make profits? Yes, and their products save millions of lives.

• Do electric utilities make profits? Yes, and cheap, reliable electricity keeps food refrigerated, houses warm or cool, and cell phones charged.

 And speaking of ROI, a very thorough study of the UK's space industry shows it to be one of the most productive of all industrial sectors. I don't know of a corresponding study for the US, but anecdotally, I understand that NASA typically uses the figure of $8 returned for every $1 invested.

Government support of the space resources industry should become like government support of aviation, electrical transmission, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other economic sector. It will help the companies flourish, and make new benefits available to all.
 
 An updated NASA vision should support this.